A Blockbuster Universe

The Monopoly of Cinema

In 2009, Avatar sunk Titanic (sorry!) as the highest grossing film of all time pocketing a ludicrous $2.79 billion. Quite the feat for director James Cameron who after more than a decade returned to later knock his own film from the top spot as the highest grossing film of all time*. Fast forward another decade and you might start to notice a pattern emerging amongst the elite blockbuster movie world.

Among the top their earners, you can find the likes of Avengers: Age of Ultron, not quite managing to trump it’s predecessor The Avengers although getting pretty close. It was the recent remake of The Lion King that did, just short of overtaking Avengers: Infinity War which sits nicely behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens as the fifth highest grossing. Not to worry though as this years conclusion, Avengers: Endgame, took the crown as the highest grossing film in history with a cool $2.796 Billion, edging out Avatar.

Notice anything? Seven of the top ten are owned by Disney and if we stretch to the top twenty there’s another five. That’s more than half and they have all been released in the last decade. With Disney buying over the likes of Star Wars, Avatar, Indiana Jones and even it’s competitors like 20th Century Fox, it’s seeming like the upcoming decade could be facing a market monopoly.

'But, I love Disney!' You might be thinking. 'Give me more Frozen!' Your kids might scream at you. 'Star Wars! Every year! Forever!', you, now in your 30’s might say. And you wouldn’t be wrong in wanting more - Disney and specifically Marvel have worked hard at churning out action packed spectacles. Throw in the biggest actors on the planet, big budget set pieces, unparalleled visual effects and infuse all of this in a complex web of decent stories and glamorous world building, you can see on how the popularity of Marvel is justified. But as great as all this is for Disney, Marvel and it’s fans, what does it mean for the industry itself? And what kind of criticism has it been getting?

It’s safe to say that Marvel have redefined the franchise movie. Over the initial 22 films (and growing) it grossed a mammoth $17 Billion, more than any other franchise. Ever. Beating out the likes of Fast and Furious, James Bond and Harry Potter. Along with this, it generally scores positive reviews - an average of around 80% - and collects dozens of award nominations in the process. The industry is yet to feel the true impact of the 20th Century Fox buyout, but in the next decade Disney's monopoly will continue to grow. So what makes the Marvel formula so lucrative for audiences?

For starters, they have been (more or less) successful in challenging the status quo and changing the formula and vision with each film. That’s not to say that Marvel have been pioneers, just lucky and determined in their formula. They have mastered the balance between innovation, a strong continuity - while maintaining each films independence - and most importantly, throwing wads of cash at top notch filmmakers. It seems to have worked though. It only takes a quick google to see that almost 3/4 of the worst-performing big budget films were mild attempts to become franchise starters over the last few years. Marvel keeps the most sought after top spot though, seemingly around this general formula for success:

Defined and varied genres, with atypical directors;
A strong and stable core of continuity of the universe through each film;
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it - keeping actors and production crews that work;
Challenging the formula and cultivating curiosity (Easter eggs, end credit scenes, Disney + connecting series).

Most of the filmmakers brought into direct Marvel films tend to not actually have any experience in making superhero films and have usually come from other genres like horror, theatre, comedy. Marvel have a whole buffet of film makers to pick from so It’s clear that the carefully selected genre underscores each film. For example: Ant-Man is a classic heist film, Captain America: The Winter Soldier an espionage, Guardians of the Galaxy a space opera adventure and Thor has an unmistakable Shakespearean tinge. Thor Ragnarok, well that’s just Taika Waititi but it goes to show the risks that Marvel have began to take in the later chapters of the series to keep it fresh. On top of this, the film makers had a much bigger budget to play with. Much bigger. The likes of Taika Waititi who comes from a small indie background, Ryan Coogler with Black Panther or Kenneth Branagh with Thor. Even in it’s premiership, Jon Favraou with Iron Man who, up to that point had a portfolio of slick dialogue and witty characters in the likes of Swingers could be seen as a risky choice, but worked well nonetheless.

However, Marvel aren’t focussing on creating cinema that conveys hearty emotional or phycological experiences, they are directing the physical experience of going to the cinema at it’s core. But not necessarily conveying a potent message. Yes, there are some interesting characters, drowned in lavish visuals and it’s all good fun, but by no means is it game changing to a stand alone piece of cinema - well, outside of redefining the franchise movie! Ultimately, with the financial backing of Disney, and taking risks using masters-of-their-craft filmmakers, Marvel have been able to exploit and expunge the best parts of the teams they work with, nailing the tonal quality and themes in each film.

In saying that, what does it really mean for the art and integrity of cinema? Is Marvel merely enabling the profiting of a large corporate scheme? Of course it is! It’s been slowly tightening its grip on the blockbuster end of the cinematic spectrum and smaller indie films are struggling more in big cinema chains because of it (albeit in a changing consumer landscape with the advent of streaming etc.). Marvels monopoly has only bolstered their own position, like many conglomerates before it, streamlining a homogenous form of cinema void of the authentic dramatisation that unites the ethical thread of cinematic philosophy stitched throughout it. With a few exceptions, as mentioned. The question then is, are the audience benefitting from this? If you are a Marvel/Disney aficionado, then absolutely! If you are anyone else in the industry though, maybe not so much. More than ever the way in which the audience consumes the content is changing, thus the content must too.

As mentioned, there is generally a strong continuity of quality through Marvels' cannon. In terms of big budget superhero flicks, Marvel are unmatched. Although, while they have financially enabled these franchises to continue, it would be partisan to say they do not also stand as carbon copies of each other. Each chapter proudly delivers cliche after boring cliche as though Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans quipping jokes from the back of a Penguin wrapper rids the franchise of the black hole gorging on any originality at the centre of their universe. At it’s peak, the dialogue is about as exciting as a Ryvita for dinner. It really has raised the bar for beige scripts and brainless spectacle.

Despite the odd moment of mild surprise, Marvel have maintained a stronghold of avoiding discomfort. For the longest time there was very little collateral damage involved. Nobody is ever really hurt too much, cities never totally destroyed, it’s just mashing through armies of faceless aliens all at very minimal risk. The creativity and emotional innovation lacks, it instead prioritises reducing the risks involved and the denial of creative artistry. It beats its competitors by buying them out, or pushing them off the main stage (by taking up so much of it no less). Nowadays, the shrinking land for independent movies to exist on has been kept sustainable only by independent cinemas, streaming providers or television. Never ending sequels, spin-offs and reboots populate the majority of films in the cinema and if that’s all audiences go to see then the studios will keep making them. And boy, have the studios caught on to this! As cinema goers, is this our fault? Is it a chicken and egg situation?

In October, Martin Scorsese chimed in with a pretty indicting statement on the franchise takeover, commenting, ‘That’s not cinema.’ Obviously, he received some stick for this. To be fair to him though, he went on to clarify in a NYTimes opinion piece that it came from a place of real concern and was really for the good of the art. It began to wedge a division within the industry and it didn’t take long before Scorsese’s cronies came to back him up. Ken Loach said in a Sky News interview that ‘It’s about making a commodity which will make a profit for a big corporation… They’re a market exercise and it has nothing to do with the art of cinema.’ Even Francis Ford Coppola of The Godfather and Apocalypse Now fame took Scorsese’s side, slewing, ‘I don’t know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again. Martin was kind when he said it’s not cinema. He didn’t say it’s despicable, which I just say it is.’ Although, he did clarify this later blaming dodgy translation adding that it’s mostly regarding the lack of risk involved in the film industry which is making commerce films as apposed to true art.

I wish there was a conclusive take-away message from this but in reality the industry will only continue to grow in this way. It has it’s pros and cons obviously, but that might include the biggest con of all: damaging the core principles of cinema as an art form for emotional communication. Maybe it’s too early to say with confidence that it’s a downward spiral, most likely something will come along in the next handful of years to change the way we consume media, changing the landscape yet again. In the end, we will always be seeking stories that inspire us, relate to us and remove us from the meaningless void of our lives, even if it’s just for a couple of hours. It might illicit love, fear, dread or happiness but that’s the real magic of cinema and I guess that’s what really counts.

Ok, so maybe there is a take-away then.

SD

* When adjusted to inflation, Gone With the Wind is technically the highest grossing film of all time.

A Blockbuster Universe: The Monopoly of Cinema

SD